Increasing value of autopsies in patients with brain tumors in the molecular era

  • Jared T. Ahrendsen
  • Mariella G. Filbin
  • Susan N. Chi
  • Peter E. Manley
  • Karen D. Wright
  • Pratiti Bandopadhayay
  • Jessica R. Clymer
  • Kee Kiat Yeo
  • Mark W. Kieran
  • Robert Jones
  • Hart G. Lidov
  • Keith L. Ligon
  • Sanda AlexandrescuEmail author
Clinical Study



Pediatric brain tumors are associated with high morbidity and mortality, in part due to insufficient understanding of tumor biology. With limited tissue allocation for research from surgical specimens, a key barrier to improving biological understanding, brain tumor autopsies have become an increasingly valuable resource. This study reviews the brain tumor autopsy practice at our institution and describes specific emerging research utilization patterns beyond the clinical autopsy report.


We performed a retrospective analysis of brain tumor autopsies at Boston Children’s Hospital (BCH) between 2007 and 2017 and reviewed their consents, neuropathology reports and final diagnoses. We reviewed the method of tissue triaging for research consented autopsies (bioregistry, frozen and fresh tissue) and documented their specific uses.


Ninety-six deaths at BCH were due to brain tumors; 56 autopsies were performed (58.3%), of which 49 (87.5%) were consented for research. Tumor mapping was performed on all cases and tissue was allocated for DNA- and RNA-based sequencing studies (published and ongoing). Three tissue allocations with a postmortem interval of 8 h or less resulted in successful cell lines. Tissue from 14 autopsies was contributed to the National DIPG Registry.


Our institutional pediatric brain tumor autopsy clinical experience demonstrates the increased utility and wide utilization of autopsy-derived tissue for multiple types of research. These results support the increased efforts to obtain research consent for brain tumor autopsy and active collection of unfixed autopsy material in the molecular era.


Brain tumor autopsy Tissue allocation Autopsy-derived cell lines Autopsy consent 



We are grateful for the support we receive from the pathology assistants and autopsy technicians, as well as for the support and collaboration of Boston Children’s Hospital Biorepository. Also, we acknowledge and thank the families that consented to autopsy research.


No funds were used for this particular manuscript and analysis.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript have no conflict of interest to disclose.

Supplementary material

11060_2019_3302_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (226 kb)
Electronic supplementary material 1 (PDF 226 kb)


  1. 1.
    Curtin SC, Minino AM, Anderson RN (2016) Declines in cancer death rates among children and adolescents in the United States, 1999-2014. NCHS Data Brief 257:1–8Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ostrom QT, Gittleman H, Truitt G, Boscia A, Kruchko C, Barnholtz-Sloan JS (2018) CBTRUS statistical report: primary brain and other central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2011–2015. Neuro-oncology 20:iv1–iv86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guerreiro Stucklin AS, Ramaswamy V, Daniels C, Taylor MD (2018) Review of molecular classification and treatment implications of pediatric brain tumors. Curr Opin Pediatr 30:3–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nemetz PN, Tanglos E, Sands LP, Fisher WP, Newman WP, Burton EC (2006) Attitudes toward the autopsy—an 8-state survey. MedGenMed 8(3):80PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kumar P, Angst DB, Taxy J, Mangurten HH (2000) Neonatal autopsies: a 10-year experience. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 154(1):38–42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Newton D, Coffin CM, Clark EB, Lowichik A (2004) How the pediatric autopsy yields valuable information in a vertically integrated health care system. Arch Pathol Lab Med 128(11):1239–1246PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shojania KG, Burton EC (2008) The vanishing nonforensic autopsy. N Engl J Med 358(9):873–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Loughrey MB, McCluggage WG, Toner PG (2000) The declining autopsy rate and clinicians' attitudes. Ulster Med J 69(2):83–89PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lundberg GD (1996) College of American Pathologists Conference XXIX on restructuring autopsy practice for health care reform. Let's make this autopsy conference matter. Arch Pathol Lab Med 120(8):736–738PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sullivan J, Monagle P (2011) Bereaved parents' perceptions of the autopsy examination of their child. Pediatrics 127(4):e1013–e1020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Odendaal HJ, Elliott A, Kinney HC, Human M, Gaspar D, Petersen D et al (2011) Consent for autopsy research for unexpected death in early life. Obstet Gynecol 17(1):167–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wiener L, Sweeney C, Baird K, Merchant MS, Warren KE, Corner GW et al (2014) What do parents want to know when considering autopsy for their child with cancer? J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 36(6):464–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pentz RD, Cohen CB, Wicclair M, DeVita MA, Flamm AL, Youngner SJ et al (2005) Ethics guidelines for research with the recently dead. Nat Med 11(11):1145–1149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kieran MW (2015) Time to rethink the unthinkable: upfront biopsy of children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG). Pediatr Blood Cancer 62(1):3–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Puget S, Beccaria K, Blauwblomme T, Roujeau T, James S, Grill J et al (2015) Biopsy in a series of 130 pediatric diffuse intrinsic Pontine gliomas. Childs Nerv Syst 31(10):1773–1780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Baugh J, Bartels U, Leach J, Jones B, Chaney B, Warren KE et al (2017) The international diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma registry: an infrastructure to accelerate collaborative research for an orphan disease. J Neurooncol 132(2):323–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Broniscer A, Baker JN, Baker SJ, Chi SN, Geyer JR, Morris EB et al (2010) Prospective collection of tissue samples at autopsy in children with diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma. Cancer 116(19):4632–4637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lin GL, Monje M (2017) A protocol for rapid post-mortem cell culture of diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG). J Vis Exp 121:55360Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grasso CS, Tang Y, Truffaux N, Berlow NE, Liu L, Debily MA et al (2015) Functionally defined therapeutic targets in diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma. Nat Med 21(6):555–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Filbin MG, Tirosh I, Hovestadt V, Shaw ML, Excalante LE, Mathewson ND et al (2018) Developmental and oncogenic programs in H3K27M gliomas dissected by single-cell RNA-seq. Science 360(6386):331–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hulette CM, Welsh-Bohmer KA, Crain B, Szymanski MH, Sinclaire NO, Noses AD (1997) Rapid brain autopsy. The Joseph and Kathleen Bryan Alzheimer's Disease Research Center experience. Arch Pathol Lab Med 121(6):615–618PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kambhampati M, Perez JP, Yadavilli S, Saratsis AM, Hill AD, Ho CY et al (2015) A standardized autopsy procurement allows for the comprehensive study of DIPG biology. Oncotarget 6(14):12740–12747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ghorpade A, Bruch L, Persidsky Y, Chin B, Brown WH, Borgmann K et al (2005) Development of a rapid autopsy program for studies of brain immunity. J Neuroimmunol 163(1–2):135–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Robin MA, Putzi M, Mucci N, Smith DC, Wojno K, Korenchuk S et al (2000) Rapid (“warm”) autopsy study for procurement of metastatic prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res 6(3):1038–1045Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lindell KO, Erlen JA, Kaminski N (2006) Lessons from our patients: development of a warm autopsy program. PLoS Med 3(7):e234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bavi P, Siva M, Abi-Saab T, Chadwick D, Dhani N, Butany J et al (2019) DEveloping a pan-cancer research autopsy programme. J Clin Pathol. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pisapia DJ, Salvatore S, Pauli C, Hissong E, Eng K, Prandi D et al (2017) Next-generation rapid autopsies enable tumor evolution tracking and generation of preclinical models. JCO Precis Oncol 1:1–13Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hoffman LM, DeWire M, Ryall S, Buczkowicz P, Leach J, Miles L et al (2016) Spatial genomic heterogeneity in diffuse intrinsic pontine and midline high-grade glioma: implications for diagnostic biopsy and targeted therapeutics. Acta Neuropathol Commun 4:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jared T. Ahrendsen
    • 1
  • Mariella G. Filbin
    • 2
  • Susan N. Chi
    • 2
  • Peter E. Manley
    • 2
  • Karen D. Wright
    • 2
  • Pratiti Bandopadhayay
    • 2
  • Jessica R. Clymer
    • 2
  • Kee Kiat Yeo
    • 2
  • Mark W. Kieran
    • 2
    • 5
  • Robert Jones
    • 2
  • Hart G. Lidov
    • 4
  • Keith L. Ligon
    • 3
    • 4
  • Sanda Alexandrescu
    • 2
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of PathologyBeth Israel Deaconess Medical CenterBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Pediatric OncologyDana-Farber Cancer InstituteBostonUSA
  3. 3.Department of PathologyBrigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA
  4. 4.Department of PathologyBoston Children’s Hospital, Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  5. 5.Brystol Meyers SquibbNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations